An agreement that does not create any right in favor of a party in respect of the property may not require registration or stamp duty.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders dated 02.12.2014 in I.A.No.240 of 2014 in O.S.No.173 of 2008 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal.

2. This application in I.A.No.240 of 2014 was filed by the plaintiff under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the C.P.C.’) to mark the original agreement on his behalf. This application was allowed by order dated 02.12.2014. Assailing the same, the defendant filed this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of respondent. Perused the record.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit.

5. The plaintiff filed the original suit for mandatory injunction. Defendant filed the written statement. Issues were settled. In the course of trial, the plaintiff has filed this application in I.A.No.240 of 2014 to receive the agreement dated 30.4.2001, which is crucial document to establish his right of easement stating that except easementary right he is not claiming any other right in respect of immovable property. The said agreement dated 30.4.2001 is executed with required stamp duty. It is just and necessary to permit him to exhibit the said document on his behalf.

6. The defendant has filed a detailed counter before the trial Court resisting this application stating that the alleged agreement confers rights in favour of the plaintiff in respect of immovable property and it requires compulsory registration under Sections 17 and 49 of the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act and unless and until it is sufficiently stamped and registered, it cannot be received in evidence. The Court below, after examination of the rival contentions and careful analysis of the facts of the case, allowed the said application permitting the plaintiff to exhibit the said document on his behalf. Assailing the said orders, the defendant has filed this civil revision petition.

7. Admittedly, plaintiff has filed the original suit for mandatory injunction. Evidence of the plaintiff is in progress. The contention of the plaintiff is that, he is only claiming easementary right and no other rights are claimed through the said document dated 30.4.2001, and as per the said document, he is permitted to open windows for ventilation for passing air and light into his house and that he has no right to put doors towards southern side of the open place. He has no right of flow of rain and drain water from the said place. Whereas, the learned counsel for the defendant strenuously contends that this document creates rights in favour of the plaintiff in respect of immovable property on southern side of his house and it is a document required to be registered under Section 17 of Stamp Act.

8. Photocopy copy of the document is filed at page No.15 of the paper book. It is scribed on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper. A plain reading of the said agreement shows that on 30.4.2001, the plaintiff has executed the document in favour of Ibrahim Saab stating that in between their houses, there is a nine feet lane and that the said Ibrahim Saab is entitled to make construction, but the plaintiff is entitled only to open two windows into the said lane. He is not entitled to use it for flow of rain and drain water. This is the document on which the plaintiff was relying before the trial Court for grant of mandatory injunction. Nowhere in the entire contents of the document it is found that a right is created in favour of the plaintiff in respect of any immovable property either belonging to the defendant or belonging to the Gram Panchayath/Municipality.

9. Be it stated that it is a unilateral undertaking/agreement wherein the plaintiff has agreed not to put any drain spouts or make any provision for drain water or rain water, whereas the said Ibrahim Saab has got a right of ingress and egress through this way, but the plaintiff has no